Canon 3x wide angle lens

Jimmy McKenzie · October 3rd, 2004, 05:10 AM

My 3x lens goes to every shoot. This is an invaluable tool for scenes that require massive attention to the foreground. As for barrel distortion, this is only present to the highly trained eye. You will see vertical elements slightly distorted (curved) at the edges, but it is not a distraction to the viewer. I guess the big benefit is that you are not adding extra glass. I have never used add- on devices to the front of the 16x or 20x so in that regard I can't comment.

Chris Hurd · October 3rd, 2004, 07:57 AM

A big advantage to the 3x lens is that it's much lighter in weight compared to any other XL lens (20x or 16x, auto or manual) having a wide-angle adapter mounted on the front.

John Wheeler · October 3rd, 2004, 12:28 PM

Ok, so have anyone tried a century optics .6 or .7 adapter on the xl2? ...I wrote an email to century optics asking if the .7 would work on the xl2 and they sent back an email that said something along the lines of.

"WARNING, don't attempt to place your .7 converter on the XL2, we have not done any testing with that adapter and the xl2"

So if anyone has tried the Century .7 on their xl2, I'd like to know. And if anyone has an opinion as to why it wouldnt work, please respond.

thanks,

.j.

Chris Hurd · October 3rd, 2004, 01:05 PM

Here's why it won't work. Century is developing a fix for this issue, though.

John Wheeler · October 3rd, 2004, 04:01 PM

Why couldnt you just put a UV filter on the 20x's lens ..then put the .7 adapter on the UV filter?

j.

Chris Hurd · October 3rd, 2004, 04:04 PM

I don't think you'd want to stress the UV filter with the weight of a WA adapter in front of it. That's just asking for trouble in my opinion... way too delicate.

Rob Lohman · October 4th, 2004, 03:05 AM

Also the more glass you add the more chance of (bouncing)
reflections and whatnot.

Jay Gladwell · October 4th, 2004, 05:08 AM

I just did a shoot for a client this past week-end. It was all interiors in tight locations for a real estate developer on Miami Beach (800 sq. ft. for $1 million--whew!). I had no choice but to use the 3x on this job.

I had read here earlier (prior to the camera's release) that using the 3x lens on the XL2 was/would giving/give soft images. Well, I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The images I got were clear and sharp!

From everything I've seen this camera delivers, period! I can only chalk up the early negative comments to sour grapes.

Jay

Barry Goyette · October 4th, 2004, 10:02 AM

Jay

just curious...your experience matches mine for the most part...but have you seen any of the back focus issues I noted in my posting here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=32610

Barry

Jay Gladwell · October 4th, 2004, 10:18 AM

Barry--

No, I didn't see that on any of the footage I shot and there were several zooms, both in and out. Was that on manual focus?

Jay

Barry Goyette · October 4th, 2004, 10:25 AM

It's mostly noticeable on when focusing on relatively close objects 3-5 feet. Manual focus, but also on quick zooms in Autofocus.

Barry

Jay Gladwell · October 4th, 2004, 10:29 AM

This week-end I was shooting, in addition to the tiny apartments, an architect's model of the building complex. At times I was maybe just a foot or two way when zooming out and in on the model, maybe three at times, but never five or more with the 3x. And I always shoot on manual focus.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Jay

Barry Goyette · October 4th, 2004, 10:33 AM

sounds like it's just my lens...thanks jay.....1.800.call.canon.

Barry

Jay Gladwell · October 4th, 2004, 11:04 AM

Barry--

Just to be totally up front here, I'm not a "technical" person when it comes to all this. Although I've had formal training (many, many years ago), most of what I do is what I would call "flying by the seat of my pants." I know what I want. I understand what I need to do to accomplish it. But outside of the tools and methods I use, don't ask me any "technical" questions. I can't discuss the curves, knees, etc., like you and some others here do. My poor ol' brain has limited disc space, so I'm constantly dumping old stuff to make room for newer more important data!

The client tells me what they want the image to look like and I deliver it. As long as they're happy, I'm happy!

Best of luck with resolving your focus issue!

Jay

John Wheeler · October 4th, 2004, 01:25 PM

Besides not having full zoom through, is there anything wrong with the century optics .6 adapter for the xl2? I mean, is it going to give a clean image?

My goal is to get a good wide angle image from the xl2. I realize that the 3x lens would achieve that, but then again i dont want to shell out 1,200 bucks. Besides a couple of the obvious things, like "more glass" etc ....are there any real concerns with the .6 adapter?

thanks

j.

October 3rd, 2004, 07:57 AM	#32
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	A big advantage to the 3x lens is that it's much lighter in weight compared to any other XL lens (20x or 16x, auto or manual) having a wide-angle adapter mounted on the front. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 3rd, 2004, 01:05 PM	#34
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Here's why it won't work. Century is developing a fix for this issue, though. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 3rd, 2004, 04:04 PM	#36
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I don't think you'd want to stress the UV filter with the weight of a WA adapter in front of it. That's just asking for trouble in my opinion... way too delicate. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 4th, 2004, 03:05 AM	#37
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Also the more glass you add the more chance of (bouncing) reflections and whatnot. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 4th, 2004, 05:08 AM	#38
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	3x lens is not "soft" on XL2 I just did a shoot for a client this past week-end. It was all interiors in tight locations for a real estate developer on Miami Beach (800 sq. ft. for $1 million--whew!). I had no choice but to use the 3x on this job. I had read here earlier (prior to the camera's release) that using the 3x lens on the XL2 was/would giving/give soft images. Well, I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The images I got were clear and sharp! From everything I've seen this camera delivers, period! I can only chalk up the early negative comments to sour grapes. Jay

October 3rd, 2004, 05:10 AM	#31
Jimmy McKenzie Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Waterloo Ontario Posts: 721	My 3x lens goes to every shoot. This is an invaluable tool for scenes that require massive attention to the foreground. As for barrel distortion, this is only present to the highly trained eye. You will see vertical elements slightly distorted (curved) at the edges, but it is not a distraction to the viewer. I guess the big benefit is that you are not adding extra glass. I have never used add- on devices to the front of the 16x or 20x so in that regard I can't comment.

October 3rd, 2004, 12:28 PM	#33
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	Ok, so have anyone tried a century optics .6 or .7 adapter on the xl2? ...I wrote an email to century optics asking if the .7 would work on the xl2 and they sent back an email that said something along the lines of. "WARNING, don't attempt to place your .7 converter on the XL2, we have not done any testing with that adapter and the xl2" So if anyone has tried the Century .7 on their xl2, I'd like to know. And if anyone has an opinion as to why it wouldnt work, please respond. thanks, .j.

October 3rd, 2004, 04:01 PM	#35
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	Why couldnt you just put a UV filter on the 20x's lens ..then put the .7 adapter on the UV filter? j.

October 4th, 2004, 10:02 AM	#39
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Jay just curious...your experience matches mine for the most part...but have you seen any of the back focus issues I noted in my posting here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=32610 Barry

October 4th, 2004, 10:18 AM	#40
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Barry-- No, I didn't see that on any of the footage I shot and there were several zooms, both in and out. Was that on manual focus? Jay

October 4th, 2004, 10:25 AM	#41
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	It's mostly noticeable on when focusing on relatively close objects 3-5 feet. Manual focus, but also on quick zooms in Autofocus. Barry

October 4th, 2004, 10:29 AM	#42
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	This week-end I was shooting, in addition to the tiny apartments, an architect's model of the building complex. At times I was maybe just a foot or two way when zooming out and in on the model, maybe three at times, but never five or more with the 3x. And I always shoot on manual focus. Sorry I can't be of more help. Jay

October 4th, 2004, 10:33 AM	#43
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	sounds like it's just my lens...thanks jay.....1.800.call.canon. Barry

October 4th, 2004, 11:04 AM	#44
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Barry-- Just to be totally up front here, I'm not a "technical" person when it comes to all this. Although I've had formal training (many, many years ago), most of what I do is what I would call "flying by the seat of my pants." I know what I want. I understand what I need to do to accomplish it. But outside of the tools and methods I use, don't ask me any "technical" questions. I can't discuss the curves, knees, etc., like you and some others here do. My poor ol' brain has limited disc space, so I'm constantly dumping old stuff to make room for newer more important data! The client tells me what they want the image to look like and I deliver it. As long as they're happy, I'm happy! Best of luck with resolving your focus issue! Jay

October 4th, 2004, 01:25 PM	#45
John Wheeler Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Texas Posts: 85	Besides not having full zoom through, is there anything wrong with the century optics .6 adapter for the xl2? I mean, is it going to give a clean image? My goal is to get a good wide angle image from the xl2. I realize that the 3x lens would achieve that, but then again i dont want to shell out 1,200 bucks. Besides a couple of the obvious things, like "more glass" etc ....are there any real concerns with the .6 adapter? thanks j.